Talk about being hoisted on your own petard...hamstrung by your own rhetoric..or whatever. There's only one reason that Obama hasn't called out Assad for crossing the supposed "red line" on using WMDs. That's because Assad got his nerve gas, and other goodies, from Saddam..just before the war began...there were many documented stories about secret, late-night convoys from Bagdad to secret Syrian military bases. So, Saddam DID in fact possess WMDs..and that means....gasp...BUSH WAS RIGHT!!

That would make Obama, and several hundred other Democrats, look like complete idiots, and not worthy of being entrusted with the nation's security..

It would be easy for Assad to get a secret, private communique to Obama...telling him to stay out of Syria or the info gets released to the public...

And that's why we now have the US Navy cruising off the Syrian coast. Obama will emulate Clinton in 1998..launch a few Tomahawks...kill a few camels...and withdraw..claiming that a "message has been sent.."

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” —President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” —President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” —Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” —Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by: — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by: — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.” — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...” — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1051684/posts

5
posted on 08/24/2013 9:15:55 AM PDT
by outofsalt
("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")

This has pretty much been known for years, but not reported in the mainstream media for the reason you cite: it would have made the Democrats (and the mainstream media) look like partisan liars. Which, of course, they are.

That would make Obama, and several hundred other Democrats, look like complete idiots, and not worthy of being entrusted with the nation's security..

They don't just look the part. They are complete idiots and they are not worthy of being trusted with anything. I wouldn't let your average liberal run a convenience store, and I wouldn't let hussein sweep the floor in one. Trust == 0.

It is nothing new. The Soviets equipped the Ba’athist Governments of both Iraq and Syria to be compatible with the Warsaw Pact military - including their heavy emphasis on chemical warfare. Both countries had large stockpiles.

Since such stockpiles are big and heavy, if you had to redeploy them, you might want to haul Iraqi stocks out by land or sea rather than air. Sea options were pretty much from Basra through a tight gauntlet of Western navies, or through Syria, where they could remain pre-positioned in theater, or be more quickly evacuated through the Russian naval base there. Pretty clear choice for the Russians.

Maybe. But given that if Syria can manufacture herbicides and/or insecticides on their own, that won't take much to make the relatively simple--but still deadly--Tabun nerve gas, which is essentially an insecticide derivative.

No, no.. that aspect of the story will be ignored. The 1960's Marxist-Alinsky campus psycho spoiled brats and their ideological issue in the "Government-Academic-MSM Establishment" will spin the story as

IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!! because he didn't stop the WMD transfer.

29
posted on 08/24/2013 10:04:03 AM PDT
by WilliamofCarmichael
(If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)

“This has pretty much been known for years, but not reported in the mainstream media for the reason you cite: it would have made the Democrats (and the mainstream media) look like partisan liars.”

If this is true, the question is why didn’t Bush and Cheney make this information public and go into Syria to eradicate these weapons? After all, the rationale given by President Bush and Colin Powell for invading Iraq was to capture and eliminate Sadaam’s weapons of mass destruction. If Bush knew the weapons had been moved to Syria, he lied to the American people. No different than Obama.

It is interesting Bush changed the mission almost immediately after the invasion from looking for weapons of mass destruction to nation building.

Assad and Syria were allies of Iran. Iran has always been the big threat to the US, not Iraq. Why did George Bush invade Iraq when the weapons were gone? Why didn’t he invade Iran and take out Iran’s nuclear program? It was (and is) a much more credible threat to the homeland.

Our leaders from both parties have been dishonest with the American people in committing troops to war. Our founding fathers cautioned us to stay out of foreign entanglements. After WWII if we had followed their advice we would have saved over 100,000 lives of US servicemen in Korea and Vietnam. We would have saved trillions of taxpayer dollars by forcing western Europe to man and pay for its own defense against the Soviet Union.

If we had followed the advice of the founders we would not have incurred the wrath of the Muslim world by entangling ourselves in the affairs of the sovereign nations of the Middle East. 9/11 resulted from decades of covert and overt involvement in Middle Eastern affairs over several decades. If we had not involved ourselves in propping up corrupt regimes in the region (from the Shah to Mubarak), sending arms in the 1980’s to the Afghan “freedom” fighters, trying to force peace negotiations between Israel and Middle Eastern nations, or putting ground troops in the region these people would not have any reason to launch terror attacks against us. Note Al Qaeda is not targeting China with suicide airline attacks. China is also not putting troops on the ground in the Middle East, overtly trying to manage diplomatic relations between Middle Eastern nations, or funding the militaries of dictatorships in the region.

The Middle East has been a conflict ridden sewer since Biblical times. In hindsight if after WWII we had stood back and let the Soviet Union get sucked fully into the quagmire of the Middle East, including trying to govern Afghanistan, the Soviet Empire might have fallen quicker than it did. Our involvement in Middle Eastern affairs since 1945 has done nothing for our national security.

Our leaders never seem to consider that if we stopped trying to influence events in a region, other nations would act in their own interest to bring a balance of power. India sits as a counter to both communist China and Pakistan. Iran and the Saudi’s are enemies. Turkey does not want to see either Iran or Saudi Arabia dominate the Middle East. The Europeans depend much more on Middle East oil than we do and if we butted out, they’d have to get involved in order to protect their oil supplies. In very recent times our interference is directly responsible for the turmoil in Egypt today and the reimposition of military rule. Had we not backed the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt would be more stable. If we weren’t funding the Egyptian military, the oil producing states would have to fund it in order to keep the Iranians from influencing Egypt.

The founders understood that it is foolhardy to be involved in the affairs of nations far from our shores. The average American citizen today is more likely to be killed by an drunken illegal immigrant driver from Mexico, El Salvador, or Honduras than an Al Qaeda terrorist. Had this nation spent the last 70 years securing our borders instead of fighting wars in other nations, our country would not be bankrupt and our nation would not be drowning in the social problems caused by open borders. Had we stayed out of Vietnam, the marxist leftists might not have taken over the Democrat Party. If our leaders had focused on American interests instead of globalism we would have maintained our historical tariff structure and still have a manufacturing infrastructure serving the domestic market and providing middle class jobs.

Bring our military home, build a missile defense system, secure the borders, throw out the criminal illegals and focus on rebuilding our nation including achieving energy independence. Let the Europeans deal with protecting their oil supplies or deal with the consequences of not doing so. It isn’t the responsibility of the US taxpayer. Let Israel form its own alliances and sink or swim. The US cannot protect Israel forever. After 60 years it needs to find a way, on its own, to protect itself. If it cannot stand on its own, it will ultimately fail anyway. Let India, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, and Australia counter the Chinese. In fact if we pull back to the Western Hemisphere, Russia will have to focus its attention on Chinese expansion.

This nation has many geographic advantages. Two oceans protect us from land invasion from Asia and Europe. The Mississippi river system provides low cost water transportation to support an advanced manufacturing infrastructure in the heartland as well as move agricultural products. We have abundant natural resources that give us the capability of being self sufficient. We have the population size to create consumer and industrial markets with manufacturing scale and therefore be self sufficient in manufacturing as we were until the 1960’s. By trying to influence the affairs of nations outside our hemisphere we have only wasted lives and economic resources.

30
posted on 08/24/2013 10:09:38 AM PDT
by Soul of the South
(Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)

I have always wondered why Bush backed off on this - there’ were even photos of the turck convoys from Iraq to Syris/Lebenon...there the reports on the flights and the whole rest of it - but instead of pushing those credible reports - with surveilance photos/videos - (I think Colin Powell even presented one at the UN early on - why the Bush administratin backed off and ‘admitted’ no WMDs!

Powell’s reprot to the UN - which, after the new rhetoric of NO WMD came out, he disclaimed. Wonder what they have on him?

“
As for Assads chemical weapons stockpile, Vallely tells Newsmax: The chemical weapons certainly were there. Theyre originally cached from Iraq. That was done in 2003. There were three burial sites of the WMDs  chemical, biological  two sites in Syria and one in [Lebanons] Bekaa Valley.”

Heres a little something you should know friend. We can argue the merits of invading Iraq from now to doomsday but it was the Israelis who did the real job. In June of 1981 they took out Saddams reactor which was about to go on line.(courtesy of the French) Had they not done so Saddam would have a nukes thirty years ago and the Middle East and the world would be a very different place today.

Remember that article written by Jack Wilson in the NY Times where he stated that Hussein did not obtain yellow cake uranium from Niger, the article that led to the 3 year investigation into who "outed" his wife, Valerie Plame, as being a covert CIA agent as alleged retribution against him?

A simple web search will suffice to educate you about Syrian chemical weapons. Your assumption that Syria had no chem weapons before receiving Saddam’s is common on this site and flat out WRONG. Syria already had one of the largest stockpiles of chem weapons in the world long before Saddam sent his over. I know it makes you feel vindicated to assume that Syria is using Saddam’s weapons, but that is just wishful thinking without a shred of evidence to support your assumptions one way or another.

It’s great speculation, however.

37
posted on 08/24/2013 11:09:40 AM PDT
by Owl558
(Those who remember George Santayana are doomed to repeat him)

Yes has been known for years. Saddam’s #2 general in the Air Force, Georges Sada, said the WMD were sent to Syria by Chemical Ali. There were 56 WMD flights disguised as relief flights from Iraq to Syria in 2002.

Sada was Saddam’s only Christian general, and ironically, the only general he could trust to tell him the truth.

I heard General Sada speak at our church. He revealed as an interesting aside that all of Saddam’s kitchen workers were Christian to protect him from being poisoned.

If this is true, the question is why didnt Bush and Cheney make this information public and go into Syria to eradicate these weapons?

Maybe because (a) it was a war and making that kind of information public could harm your war effort (b) they really didn't want to inform several other insane governments exactly where those weapons were, and (c) they were men enough not to change their strategies just because some Democrats were squealing like little girls?

Sad thing is we supplied them to saddam in 1979 when we hated Iran. Saddam used them against the Iranians. Jimmy carter gave it to them. That’s why Bushvand everybody knew they existed . Saddam gave them to Syria.

43
posted on 08/24/2013 5:18:40 PM PDT
by ncfool
(Obama's aMeriKa 2012 The land of entitlement for the 51% crowd.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.